President Obama’s expected proposal for a $10 fee on each barrel of oil to fund research into clean transportation options, mass transit and new forms of mass transit is not expected to be enacted.

The proposal drew quick condemnation from Republicans and the energy industry.

“Under no circumstances will I let President Obama put his unrealistic, unnecessary, and costly climate change agenda above hardworking Americans. This proposed ‘fee’ is just yet another tax that will do nothing but raise prices for West Texas. The president is spending his final year in office proposing as many last-ditch radical policies as he possibly can, and Republicans in the House simply won’t allow it. This ludicrous proposal is dead on arrival,” said Rep. Mike Conaway, whose District 11 includes Midland, in a statement.

“It shows our president is incredibly out of touch with how the business of energy works,” commented Joseph Castillo, president of Bold Energy III.

George Rogers, chairman of the board of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, said in a statement, “President Obama’s proposed $10 tax on each barrel of crude oil produced in the U.S. is another needless attempt to strangle an industry that is critical to our nation’s economy and national security. A $10-per-barrel tax on an industry already in a deep decline would be a death sentence. The Texas Alliance of Energy Producers will vigorously oppose this tax increase.”

He continued, “A $10 tax on a barrel of crude oil that is selling for about $30 is ludicrous. President Obama’s new tax defies economic logic and lacks common sense. This is not a tax on Big Oil, because 92 percent of the oil produced in the U.S. is produced by independent oil producers, not the major, integrated oil companies. It is an attack on small business and American energy security. In addition to crippling the country's independent producers, crude oil imports will increase, and consumer prices will rise.”

Amarillo Economist Karr Ingham called the proposal “a silly notion.”

“The tendency is a little misguided to think, when oil is at $30, why would you impose a $10 fee? That’s a third of the price in a new fee, never mind the other taxes producers already pay? But it’s a terrible idea at $30 oil, at any price. It doesn’t make any economic sense whatsoever,” he said.

If the goal is force consumers to change from fossil fuels to renewables to combat change, taxing the raw product — crude oil, in this case — would be ineffective. Imposing the fee at the refinery or at the distributor would be more effective, but that would mean the consumers would be paying the fee, he said.

That would draw widespread protests, whereas oil companies are an easy target that few would rally around, Ingham said.

“Raising prices and incentivizing people away from fossil fuels is not the way to do this,” he said. It would undo the benefits to the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers in the last five to seven years as domestic producers have almost doubled oil production, providing the nation with abundant, reliable affordable supplies. Imposing the fee would return the nation to its days importing crude, Ingham said.

“It harms the consumer directly by raising prices and it harms in the long-term by robbing consumers of a fully-functioning market that operates in their best interests,” Ingham continued.

That is being seen today as the market encouraged producers to find significant new supplies of crude by sending prices above $100 a barrel, and once supplies were abundant, sending prices lower, he said.

“The domestic oil and gas industry has been a target of this administration, and this is the latest salvo in that long-running attack. This proposal makes no sense from an economic standpoint or a climate change standpoint,” Ingham said.